gmaurizio Posted January 10, 2008 Share #101 Posted January 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I don't know many of the lenses you mention, but I seriously question your judgement of the first one. The WATE is a great lens, and the 14L was never very good, so if you are ranking them in the opposite order, I think that there was something wrong with that WATE or the camera it was tested on. Just for the record, the Canon 14mmL I was referring to is the II model just released a few months ago, not the 199x version that has been around a while and was far less optimal than even the old Nikon 14mm AF. The Canon 14mm L II is a fantastic lens, sharp and contrasty, and until the appearance of the D3 and the 14-24mm from Nikon, the only game in town for ultrawide architecture and interior shots. I guess your comment was referring to the old version, which of course is not in the same league as almost any decent wide angle lens. I just wanted to set the record straight, since my comment was disqualified for this reason. I guess the lens nomenclature is getting very complicated, specially in canon, where there is a need to too many IIIII just to make sure what you are talking about. In the digital world, the WATE becomes instead of 16-18-21 a 21-24-28mm, so it cannot compete in the ultra-wide category, for lenses wider than 20mm. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted January 10, 2008 Posted January 10, 2008 Hi gmaurizio, Take a look here Any M8 users with Nikon D3 or d300 experience?. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
tom0511 Posted January 10, 2008 Author Share #102 Posted January 10, 2008 Yes Tom, I am using regularly the 200F2VR with the D2X, D2H and now D3. Results are fantastic. I could/am very close to get one today. I just got some second thoughts since I also have the 70-200VR and high ISO are getting better and better. However I never found the 70200VR really that sharp and contrasty at f2.8. How often do you use f2.0? Would you say that the 200/2.0 also delievers more magic than the 70-200 or 180/2.8 when stopped down? Which hood do you use? And do you use Teleconverters, if so which with what experience? Sorry for all those questions. Tom Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 10, 2008 Share #103 Posted January 10, 2008 In the digital world, the WATE becomes instead of 16-18-21 a 21-24-28mm, so it cannot compete in the ultra-wide category, for lenses wider than 20mm. I would anyway prefer a Nikkor Wide Zoom against a Canon, especially the new 1-24. The WATE currently is limited to 21-28, but as soon as the M9 is ther, which will be FF it will be another competitor, and I guess a great one. I personally think that the 14mm versus 16mm is a more hypothetical discussion, even under Pro's, because to be very honest, if one can make only his living by using 14mm lenses, then I think it is time to reconsider the work they are doing as well as who they work for. Just my 5c. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
imported_reinierv Posted January 10, 2008 Share #104 Posted January 10, 2008 and now....back to taking pictures ;-) Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest leicawanabe Posted January 10, 2008 Share #105 Posted January 10, 2008 As you all are seeing, the 14-24 is incredible and gives the primes a run for their money. Granted size is ridiculous but results are outstandimg. Have a look at this thread My 14-24 is better than a Zeiss 15 on M8? - NikonCameraUser and compare observe the corner crop. Wow. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted January 10, 2008 Share #106 Posted January 10, 2008 I would anyway prefer a Nikkor Wide Zoom against a Canon, especially the new 1-24. The WATE currently is limited to 21-28, but as soon as the M9 is ther, which will be FF it will be another competitor, and I guess a great one. I personally think that the 14mm versus 16mm is a more hypothetical discussion, even under Pro's, because to be very honest, if one can make only his living by using 14mm lenses, then I think it is time to reconsider the work they are doing as well as who they work for. Just my 5c. When the space is severely limited and you need to get the shot for a real estate agent or an architect, the 14mm delivers the goods. And it is different than 16mm. I really cannot understand some of the comments in this forum regarding how one makes its own living. I have never received such comments from good photographers. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted January 10, 2008 Share #107 Posted January 10, 2008 Advertisement (gone after registration) I could/am very close to get one today.How often do you use f2.0? Would you say that the 200/2.0 also delievers more magic than the 70-200 or 180/2.8 when stopped down? Which hood do you use? And do you use Teleconverters, if so which with what experience? Sorry for all those questions. Tom The 200mm F2 is a very special lens, not your everyday tool. We mainly use it for indoor sports under bad light, or for tennis tournaments. It is very sharp at F2.0, gets better at 2.2 and fantastic at 2.8. This lens is in a different league and circles around the 70-200 and 180/2.8. There is a reason why it costs almost $5,000. Stopped down below f5.6, it is not as good. It is designed for F2.0. Throw away the stupid hood and get yourself the 200-400mm hood. It works perfect with the 14E TC --tack sharp at 2.8-- and very good with the 17E. With the 20E (2x and F4) you need to stop down to 5.6 to get amazing results, and VR works in all 3 cases with no problems. You will know if you need this lens, but coupled with the D3 it is just magic. You can shoot tennis at night at 1/2000 and F2.8/F4 with surprising clarity, acuteness and contrast. Beats the hell out of the 200F1.8 from canon. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 10, 2008 Share #108 Posted January 10, 2008 When the space is severely limited and you need to get the shot for a real estate agent or an architect, the 14mm delivers the goods. And it is different than 16mm. I really cannot understand some of the comments in this forum regarding how one makes its own living. I have never received such comments from good photographers. Why then not need a 12mm which will get you even more results? Do you not see the argument here? Sure the 14-24 is a great lens, but what makes me really think about the quality of a photographer if the argumentation is that he or she could not have done a certain shot without such a lens. There are always options and sometimes they are less comfortable and maybe it is easier with newer options. My whole life has told me (and keeps telling me) that there are always alternative options! But making such general statements does not draw a too mature picture ..... sorry. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted January 10, 2008 Share #109 Posted January 10, 2008 Why then not need a 12mm which will get you even more results? Do you not see the argument here? Sure the 14-24 is a great lens, but what makes me really think about the quality of a photographer if the argumentation is that he or she could not have done a certain shot without such a lens. There are always options and sometimes they are less comfortable and maybe it is easier with newer options. My whole life has told me (and keeps telling me) that there are always alternative options! But making such general statements does not draw a too mature picture ..... sorry. If you will be so kind as to explain how to get a 10 ft wall with a complex decoration from 5/6 ft across without using an extremely wide lens, or tearing down a wall, I would really appreciate it. I am glad your life speaks to you, make sure to answer back. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
carstenw Posted January 10, 2008 Share #110 Posted January 10, 2008 Just for the record, the Canon 14mmL I was referring to is the II model just released a few months ago, not the 199x version that has been around a while and was far less optimal than even the old Nikon 14mm AF. The Canon 14mm L II is a fantastic lens, sharp and contrasty, and until the appearance of the D3 and the 14-24mm from Nikon, the only game in town for ultrawide architecture and interior shots. I guess your comment was referring to the old version, which of course is not in the same league as almost any decent wide angle lens. I just wanted to set the record straight, since my comment was disqualified for this reason. I guess the lens nomenclature is getting very complicated, specially in canon, where there is a need to too many IIIII just to make sure what you are talking about. In the digital world, the WATE becomes instead of 16-18-21 a 21-24-28mm, so it cannot compete in the ultra-wide category, for lenses wider than 20mm. Actually, no, I have also read very mediocre reviews of the new 14L II. In fact, Canon never really got their QC act together, as I have read both brilliant and awful reports of the new 16-35/2.8 II too. I would not go with Canon anyway, but Nikon or Leica. Olympus is an interesting third choice: the E-3. The Canons are just too flaky, and Canon doesn't fix them like Leica does (most, but not all, of the time). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlander Posted January 11, 2008 Share #111 Posted January 11, 2008 I have both an M8 and D300. While you can compare these cameras for IQ, they really are for different things and it truly is like apples and oranges. I carry when the situation optimizes a particular usage each of them in turn. If sports, I shoot with a dslr, and fast primes, travel with family usually both, but if time is an issue, the dslr and 18-200. It is sometimes diffecult to change lenses on the fly with the M8. When circumstances permit, and changing lenses won't be an issue or if I just say I want to schlepp less weight, the M8wins. Many days I just carry the M8 and 40/1.4. That covers useage! Image quality is on a par with each other but with a few caveats, either camera can be at its best or worst in a given situation. IF shooting interiors without flash in mixed lighting, the D300 wins, with flash either, but I get more keepers with the M8. I shoot everything but sports in RAW. RE: Focusing issues with fast lenses. Does anyone really expect to have no misses with a f/1.4 or faster lens, on either camera system? I don't expect this nor do I acheive this with any system. It is a very hard task to AF a 75 of 85 mm f1.4 lens. Add in some minor subject movement or change in relative position and you have a losing situation. I do not care if it is a Canon, Nikon, Leica M or Olympus. I get more consistent results when I can MF with either system. I think any system that can acheive 50% success in this is realistic and acceptable. What fun would it be if it was foolproof! Even if the camera worked perfectly and AF was perfect, DOF at f1.4 is so small anyway on a DX or 1.3x or FF. Sometimes we expect too much, photography has never been better or easier. JMO, Don You have just convinced me to take my next step!!! Thanks ... jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
highlander Posted January 11, 2008 Share #112 Posted January 11, 2008 I don't know if this is of any use to anyone, but I decided to pit a variety of Leica lenses (on the M8) against a variety of Nikon Lenses (on the D300) cpk : photos : Leica & Nikon- powered by SmugMug Nikon WB set to sunny, Leica WB set to overcast Nikon processed in Capture NX Leica processed in Capture One Pro Moderate sharpening / all noise reduction turned off. Smugmug allows 100% versions of all pics to be downloaded. All other info in exif data Leica fit Lenses: 15mm Voigtlander (coded) 21mm Zeiss f2.8 (coded) 28mm f2.0 ASPH 35mm f1.4 ASPH Nikon fit lenses: 12-24mm f4 17mm-55mm f2.8 24mm f2.8 AIS (Manual focus) 50mm f1.4D [sadly, did not have nikon 14-24mm to hand] Also, iso tests for both cameras here: cpk : photos : M8 & D300 iso tests- powered by SmugMug *Capture One not great for high ISO Leica files, so have added ACR (a) with no noise reduction and ( ACR with 25 color noise reduction Fantastic ... Well Done ... More food for thought. Regards ... Jim. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted January 11, 2008 Share #113 Posted January 11, 2008 Actually, no, I have also read very mediocre reviews of the new 14L II. In fact, Canon never really got their QC act together, as I have read both brilliant and awful reports of the new 16-35/2.8 II too. I would not go with Canon anyway, but Nikon or Leica. Olympus is an interesting third choice: the E-3. The Canons are just too flaky, and Canon doesn't fix them like Leica does (most, but not all, of the time). Carsten, up to the D3 and the 14-24mm, if you needed a truly wide angle for commercial purposes, the 1DS Mk II and the 14mm canon was almost the only option, short of 4x5 and drum scan. And many customers 'requested' digital. Given that the 1DS was 16MP, there was little to do with Nikon, or Leica in those cases. Those shots, for our studio, for interior and architecture, represent several thousand dollars of revenue each year. So we rented the damn thing and went for it. Now we can confidently upscale the 12MP D3 with the 14-24mm to compete and best the Canon. We have not tested the MK III so far. While not perfect, the Canon 14mm L II is a very good lens, for that purpose, in studio or controlled lighting environment and suitably stopped down. That was our experience. The D3 and the 14-24mm changed that 'big time'. One shot for a very well known builder and architect paid for the whole thing and left some profit. It is that good. My point is why Nikon can make an outstanding 14-24mm AF lens for $1,800 and Leica charges almost $7,000????? It makes no 'commercial' sense to me. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 11, 2008 Share #114 Posted January 11, 2008 If you will be so kind as to explain how to get a 10 ft wall with a complex decoration from 5/6 ft across without using an extremely wide lens, or tearing down a wall, I would really appreciate it.I am glad your life speaks to you, make sure to answer back. Well, if this is the only work you can make money of I would really start thinking to change something. And BTW, what did you do before such lenses were available? Or FF DSLRs? Some like you just do not want to start using their brain. Good for you that you an kill everything by just using latest technology ..... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
photojimj Posted January 11, 2008 Share #115 Posted January 11, 2008 Hi I had an M8 [well 3 actually but they all went defunct on me] and have used the refund towards a D3 which i use with CZ 35f2 and CZ100f2. I must confess that the results that i am getting with this combo are superb. In fact the best that i have ever had compared to any other previous camera/lens combo - and that is quite an extensive list. I think it is fair to say that Nikon are onto a winner here. Jim Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted January 11, 2008 Share #116 Posted January 11, 2008 When the space is severely limited and you need to get the shot for a real estate agent or an architect, the 14mm delivers the goods. And it is different than 16mm. I really cannot understand some of the comments in this forum regarding how one makes its own living. I have never received such comments from good photographers. Hmmm.. I use a Tegea 9.8 mm (rectilinear!) on the M8. Maybe too wide for your purpose? Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ddp Posted January 11, 2008 Share #117 Posted January 11, 2008 Why then not need a 12mm which will get you even more results? Do you not see the argument here? Sure the 14-24 is a great lens, but what makes me really think about the quality of a photographer if the argumentation is that he or she could not have done a certain shot without such a lens. There are always options and sometimes they are less comfortable and maybe it is easier with newer options. My whole life has told me (and keeps telling me) that there are always alternative options! But making such general statements does not draw a too mature picture ..... sorry. On occasion I have to use the Nikkor 12-24. There are no other options. Period. End of story. It has nothing to do with the quality or lack of creativity in the photographer. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted January 11, 2008 Share #118 Posted January 11, 2008 Well, if this is the only work you can make money of I would really start thinking to change something. And BTW, what did you do before such lenses were available? Or FF DSLRs? Some like you just do not want to start using their brain. Good for you that you an kill everything by just using latest technology ..... Just for you to know, Dr., film has been full frame for a long time with the old faithful Nikon 14mm and other options. Not to mention medium format, the preferred choice for architecture with the SWC 38mm lens, and moving the tripod to get two pictures and lots of photoshop. Of course there are options! That is not the point here. My point is that the 14-24mm is a fantastic lens. That seems to upset those die-hard Leica fans that can not even begin to accept other equipment without the red dot or the Leica logo are even good. I feel sorry for those people, and they remind me of the dangers of fanatism. Also, dear Dr., shooting the messenger does not invalidate the message. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
gmaurizio Posted January 11, 2008 Share #119 Posted January 11, 2008 Hmmm.. I use a Tegea 9.8 mm (rectilinear!) on the M8. Maybe too wide for your purpose? Jaap, that is indeed an option, though not an easily accessible one. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptomsu Posted January 11, 2008 Share #120 Posted January 11, 2008 Just for you to know, Dr., film has been full frame for a long time with the old faithful Nikon 14mm and other options. Not to mention medium format, the preferred choice for architecture with the SWC 38mm lens, and moving the tripod to get two pictures and lots of photoshop. Of course there are options! That is not the point here. My point is that the 14-24mm is a fantastic lens. That seems to upset those die-hard Leica fans that can not even begin to accept other equipment without the red dot or the Leica logo are even good. I feel sorry for those people, and they remind me of the dangers of fanatism. Also, dear Dr., shooting the messenger does not invalidate the message. Gus, I do and did not want to shoot anybody here, and of course also not you. So if I misunderstood something I apologize! You should understand that while I am liking Leica's and the optics, I also have Nikon and Olympus. And I know that the new 14-24 is a marvelous lens and I also do not understand (already sicne years), why Leica cannot make a similar lens for an attractive price (maybe a bit higher because of pure production numbers). You could also take the old 2,8/28-70 from Nikon, which is at least as good as the 28-90 from Leica (I know that some will kill me now) but I know what I am speaking of, I own both lenses. And also Olympus is making exceptional lenses, in this range the 7-14, which is second to no Leica lens, I dare to say not even a prime. So I am completely behind this, the thing which got me wrong was that it seemed for me you were saying you cannot do your job without such a lens like the new 14-24. Because this cannot be true. It might ease your job significantly, without any doubt, but there is always (well most times at least) a workaround. Which of course might not be appropriate if you need to be fast and easy. Hope this clarifies and again I did NOT want to offend you or the job you are doing in any way. And thanks for sharing your opinion here with us about this great new tools. I myself am considering to buy the D3 and the 14-24. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.